Separate schools; part of the negotiations at Ottawa in 1870.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ttached to the matter are worthy of full consideration and I am satisfied that you will accept what 1 have to say in rein.--ofarrivingat acertainty about important point of the history of our country.You speak of a bill «>f rights differ- ent from the one I have published, and you show thereby that I am mistaken, in the affirmation 1 have made To avoid confusion in terms, I will, in reply, call the document in your possession "your bill of and 1 will call the one I published bill", although no more the author of tliis one than you are of the other; more- over, as I shall make several quotations from your possession, and treats it as of no official value, when in his evidence he says (Report, 22): "I do not know where the record of the proceedings of the Provisional Grovern- mentis."Were your bill the important re- cord looked for, Mr. Thos.Bunn could not have, in his evidence, made such a reply, knowing that he had it in his possession.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.039 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".